"I'm sure that there are many factors that eliminate a person from being a suitable adoptive parent, many of which are not considered "illegal"." Like? Adultery and fornication, per your moral standards aren't one of them, so why should being gay one of them?

”you still didn't address that Obama voted for every increase in the budget” Civics fail. Presidents do not have power to vote for bills that either legislative houses put forth, they have the responsibility to sign or veto them. A point you made earlier was that he’s defunded/reduced funding for the military, the facts show otherwise as the rising annual war budget shows your statement i...more

”you still didn't address that Obama voted for every increase in the budget”

Civics fail. Presidents do not have power to vote for bills that either legislative houses put forth, they have the responsibility to sign or veto them. A point you made earlier was that he’s defunded/reduced funding for the military, the facts show otherwise as the rising annual war budget shows your statement is at variance with reality. Indeed *certain* projects have been scaled down, or deleayed, but much of the existing military complex is far too big, and was applicable to fighting the soviet superpower before they imploded. With them gone, financing whole fleets of super expensive F-22’s to bomb Taliban in the mountains isn’t practical or economical.

.”Obama is just plain incompetent...in every regard.”

Can you bother to be a little more specific?

“Polls are showing this fact.”

Dissatisfaction, in this case not even of the majority, isn’t an impeachable offense. Try again.less

“Coyne, one of Darwin’s most ardent defenders, seems to operate under the quaint idea that Christians are marked by belief in an interventionist God and a confidence that the Bible is true.” All the chrisitans I’ve ever talked to whom rejected evolution or other science had described it as incompatible, at least with the more narrow literalistic interpretations, & have said so on ground...more

“Coyne, one of Darwin’s most ardent defenders, seems to operate under the quaint idea that Christians are marked by belief in an interventionist God and a confidence that the Bible is true.”

All the chrisitans I’ve ever talked to whom rejected evolution or other science had described it as incompatible, at least with the more narrow literalistic interpretations, & have said so on grounds that the evidence of it cannot meld with the views of the christian god intervening all the time historically & man/most would contend still to this day with miracles.

They infer that if their god didn’t expressly intervene and directly cause humanity, then they equivocate falsely this life as an accident or without value. They conflate rare events with accidents.

I dare say that if any religious follower didn’t have confidence their book was true they wouldn’t espouse the faith.less

Calling milk a drug questions even the reasoning behind & the scope of the 'war on drugs'. In the end I think it comes down to safe, controlled, & responsible use. A person technically can die from drinking too much water too fast, but this is to conflate 'drug' as being water belittles the whole point of regulation of anything. The concern is the propensity and the detriment to society, and peop...more

Calling milk a drug questions even the reasoning behind & the scope of the 'war on drugs'. In the end I think it comes down to safe, controlled, & responsible use. A person technically can die from drinking too much water too fast, but this is to conflate 'drug' as being water belittles the whole point of regulation of anything. The concern is the propensity and the detriment to society, and people drowning themselves in water isn't one of them.less

proph, you mind if I ask you why you'd reject a gay, or gay couple adopting? I know last time you mentioned you didn't think it was moral, as you stated you wouldn't want fornicators, or adulterers adopting, but there are no laws preventing such people in those cases from adopting. Looking forward to our reasoned answer, thanks.

Believer, “ Leviticus 11:13,19; "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,... and the stork, the heron and its kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat." It wrongly includes bats into the ‘fowl’ group. “Leviticus 11:20-23 mentions a wide variety of insects to include winged insects that walk on all ...more

Believer,

“ Leviticus 11:13,19; "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,... and the stork, the heron and its kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat."

It wrongly includes bats into the ‘fowl’ group.

“Leviticus 11:20-23 mentions a wide variety of insects to include winged insects that walk on all four legs, but it does not say all insects have and walk on four legs.”

You ever seen or heard of ANY insect EVER having 4 LEGS? Oh, but it’s infalliable!

:”Unless you are saying there are no insects that have four legs?”

Obviously., just read any modern biology book, no insects have 4 legs. Ever. None. Oh, but it’s infalliable! Pulease.

“Jacob was a con artist in some ways”

That explains a lot. Not. The bible uses a con artist as reputable person then? Besides, Jacob and others actually apparently thought they could get striped patterns, so it says a lot about the, uh, gullibility and ignorance going on back.

“in fulfilling the Law He negated our need to obey sacrifical”

Where does it, or he say that?less

"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists. G. K. Chesterton English author & mystery novelist (1874 - 1936)" So what? You’ve moved from making an entirely logically flawed argument to now using a logical fallacy of argument from authority? I noticed you didn’t attempt to challenge the flawed logic of your point (or shall I say his?) & instead utilized the failed appeal to authori...more

"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists. G. K. Chesterton English author & mystery novelist (1874 - 1936)"

So what? You’ve moved from making an entirely logically flawed argument to now using a logical fallacy of argument from authority?

I noticed you didn’t attempt to challenge the flawed logic of your point (or shall I say his?) & instead utilized the failed appeal to authority fallacy. Here’s a thought experiment lpepper. Surely you’re aware of all the other 1000’s of cultures which historically have believed in their own version of god(s), yes? Now, does those gods actually not existing logically mean you equally cannot be an atheist in regards to them? Of course not.

Big deal, a ‘mystery’ ‘christian appologetic’ wrote that, does that make it logically true? Of course not. Now, had some folks as a representative shown logically, as if philosophers authoring, why such a argument is logical then you would have at least something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

Here’s another from him:
“All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic.
—Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909
Wow, he believed in ‘magic trees’, spells, charm and the like. You can have him and his mystic nonsense.less

Yeah, milk is a drug, like atheism is a religion. If you really want to call things like milk a drug you're taking the meaning of it all away, as the argument for it then being illegal is null.

"If there were no God, there would be no atheists!" lpepperw, this is an entirely flawed argument. It's the equivalent of saying if there were no santa (which there isn't), there would be no a-santaists. Needless to say but no adults believe in santa (some kids might though), the evidence for such a proposition isn't congruent with what is known about the natural world. Thus the disbelief in...more

"If there were no God, there would be no atheists!"

lpepperw, this is an entirely flawed argument. It's the equivalent of saying if there were no santa (which there isn't), there would be no a-santaists. Needless to say but no adults believe in santa (some kids might though), the evidence for such a proposition isn't congruent with what is known about the natural world.

Thus the disbelief in something existing isn't contingent on it actually existing or not, it's contingent on if the positive evidence is consistently supportive, no inherit logical contradictions, sufficient for reason.

god existing or not doesn't negate a person for rejecting the belief in such a thing.less

Those are interesting points prophet, but they're, like all the time like I hear so often from the religious, anecdotal points. I am no more obligated to accept your miracles stories, even if you have an affinity for them, any more than you're obligated to believe other religions claims of miracles. If you really don't think that muhammed rode a winged horse into heaven, or that mystics from india...more

Those are interesting points prophet, but they're, like all the time like I hear so often from the religious, anecdotal points. I am no more obligated to accept your miracles stories, even if you have an affinity for them, any more than you're obligated to believe other religions claims of miracles. If you really don't think that muhammed rode a winged horse into heaven, or that mystics from india perform miracles to this, why would you think I'd take yours?less

"we're supposed to believe what you say because YOU said so? ROFL" No, I'd expect for anyone to comprehend the basic rules of logic I mentioned earlier, they're not mine. I didn't make them up, & further it makes no difference who mentioned it b/c they're universal, unless you think the laws of logic don't apply to you. Take a shot, why is circular reasoning logical or why doesn't the law ...more

"we're supposed to believe what you say because YOU said so? ROFL"

No, I'd expect for anyone to comprehend the basic rules of logic I mentioned earlier, they're not mine. I didn't make them up, & further it makes no difference who mentioned it b/c they're universal, unless you think the laws of logic don't apply to you.

Take a shot, why is circular reasoning logical or why doesn't the law of non contradiction apply to everything else in life, but your god?

The laws of logic aren't saying that you better believe or burn in hell, there is no emotional or baggage of fear attached like there is with religions.less

See, I told you DP, they're made that way! =) naa, really I don't know, kinda thought it would be funny to say.

“still lose material, on top of that it alters the mind and impairs judgment. Good grief its physics you don’t lose anything, if anything its transferred into smoke as it burns. Altering the mind is, part of, why people take drugs, that is largely the reason people use them. Likewise, alcohol & cigarettes, alter the mind/conscious, & yet they’re legal.

HO, "Alcohol is a drug to some people" Alcohol is a drug. It’s not just a drug to some people and to others not, I think you're conflating the meaning of ‘drug’ entirely in terms of it the dosage has beneficial affects on the human body. As they say in clinical science, the dosage is the poison. Too much immediate consumption of alcohol = death. The same can't be reproduced with can...more

HO,

"Alcohol is a drug to some people"

Alcohol is a drug. It’s not just a drug to some people and to others not, I think you're conflating the meaning of ‘drug’ entirely in terms of it the dosage has beneficial affects on the human body.

As they say in clinical science, the dosage is the poison. Too much immediate consumption of alcohol = death. The same can't be reproduced with cannabis, but that is not to suggest over indulgent, irresponsible us isn't adverse to ones health. Cannabis though is, in the context that you described, a drug to some people too that they find helps in moderate amounts.less

Talk about dodging the question. Tell me clover, is it truth that people shouldn’t murder others as commanded in the OT? Or is it truth that only applies to non isrealites as they laid waste to all those peoples in cannan?

“the problem is that your formula for logic is limited in comparison to God's truth” Logic is logic. I don’t make exceptions to logical principles by saying that circular reasoning, in just this one case is A-OK, you do. I understand the logical laws of non contradiction, others, not quite so much. “at this time you refuse to acknowledge let alone accept.” Why would I accept som...more

“the problem is that your formula for logic is limited in comparison to God's truth”

Logic is logic. I don’t make exceptions to logical principles by saying that circular reasoning, in just this one case is A-OK, you do. I understand the logical laws of non contradiction, others, not quite so much.

“at this time you refuse to acknowledge let alone accept.”

Why would I accept something which requires me to commit a logical fallacy in the first place to believe it, let alone believe any of it further when it doesn’t adorn logic or reason, but rather faith? Why believe something that tells you logic & reason is flawed & that you cannot trust your own eyes regarding the consistency of evidence in the natural world? What you ask for is gullibility.

“If logic were limited to the non-existance and non-presence of God then your formula for logic makes perfect sense,”

Describe the logic in how a non material interacts with the material. I’ve never heard anything process or mechanisms explaining what you propose, other than that it occurs, which is to say nothing of HOW is occurs.less

“scripture about bats, birds” Leviticus 11:13, 19) "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ... the bat." Bats are birds to the bible. “insects having four legs” Leviticus 11:20-23 seems to say that some insects have four feet. “striped patterns thing.” The Bible says you can manipulate the appearance of goats by managing the appearance of t...more

“scripture about bats, birds”

Leviticus 11:13, 19) "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ... the bat." Bats are birds to the bible.

“insects having four legs”

Leviticus 11:20-23 seems to say that some insects have four feet.

“striped patterns thing.”

The Bible says you can manipulate the appearance of goats by managing the appearance of the mating environment. Jacob did it in chapter thirty of Genesis. He worked out a deal with his father-in-law Laban to manage Laban’s flocks in exchange for the striped and spotted goats.

It seems that goats, like people, tend to mate when they go out and drink, so Jacob stripped the bark off some trees near the stream, and the goats would see the striped logs while they were doing it. They therefore produced striped and spotted offspring, and made Jacob wealthy.

“.Plus, even though the death penalty was allowed for many types of sin only coldblooded murder required that the death penalty would be carried out. “

Utter nonsense. The events in joshu & numbers are others don’t describe that at all, they describe outright plundering of whole peoples, putting them to the sword, and dashing infants against the rocks, and having pregnant mothers gutted

“And with the coming of the New Covenant through Christ the only laws from the Old Covenant that are still applicable are the moral laws such as God's condemnation of the sexual practices of homosexuality which by the way are condemned in the New Testament as well.”

But jesus said he came to uphold the law of the old , not to overturn it.less

'no not because "it" says so but because God says so!!" Uh huh, and we know god said it b/c.....Oh I know B/c IT SAYS SO!

"Incompetence" In what? Even still, is incompetence an impeachable offense? "Birther? " You heard me. Along with obamanazicare, it's one of the new english additions thanks to the, uh, reich wing. Only birther's (mostly republicans) think he's a kenyan, muslim, or not a US citizen. "his goons keep showing to everyone which he couldn't use to cross the Canadian border with" What has ...more

"Incompetence"

In what? Even still, is incompetence an impeachable offense?

"Birther? "

You heard me. Along with obamanazicare, it's one of the new english additions thanks to the, uh, reich wing. Only birther's (mostly republicans) think he's a kenyan, muslim, or not a US citizen.

"his goons keep showing to everyone which he couldn't use to cross the Canadian border with"

What has that got do with anything? a US passport is required to travel over national boarders, which he has, not a birth certificate. You can only get a US passport with a valid, raised seal birth certificate.less

steveh20, don't mind clover, he's confusing a subject for an object.